Hey all,
Just as is the case with most of the list, I planned on staying out of
the current clunker debate. Unfortunately, someone (I believe it was
Mr. Hering?) mentioned something about how the real problem with
pollution is all the old clunker California cars that don't ever die.
Now, I don't mind people bashing California, just as long as it is for
something about which CA deserves to be bashed (trust me, there's
enough!)
Well, contrary to popular belief, CA is not the per-capita auto
pollution champion in the US. In fact, I would wager to say that the
cars in CA are the cleanest in the country. The reason that we have
so much smog in SoCal is that the mountains simply hold it all in the
basin. If all the people in CA moved to say St. Louis, the smog would
simply drift away with the wind. In terms of global pollution on a
per person basis, CA is much more advanced than all of the rest of you
pollution spewing cretins :-)
Now, stuff that can be complained about:
-Why does CA seem to care if I have a K&N air filter or a stock air
filter? Or a set of headers vs. the stock exhaust manifold? All that
should matter is what comes out of the tailpipe. If I can hot rod the
GT6 (assuming I can get it to run!) and keep it clean, what is the big
deal?
-Why does CA measure pollutants as a ratio to total exhaust
composition instead of measuring the total quantity of pollutants
spewed out. If my 600cc motorcycle (as an example) has twice the
concentration of pollutants as say a 7.0 litre Trans Am, the
motorcycle is still much cleaner. With the current CA logic, I could
use a few HP from the engine to blow 600 cc of fresh air into the
muffler and thus the pollution would drop by 50%, right.
And a final $0.03 (inflation): Sure, it doesn't seem like a really
bad deal to have the government promote or sponsor the destruction of
all the 75 Sedan de Villes on the streets. But is that what the
government should be doing with its time? Do we really want the govt
using the indirect path of the oil companies to choose to eliminate
certain types of cars? That is what they are doing when the put a
govt enforced $$ value on old cars. If the cars pollute horrendously
and the owner doesn't care -- get that car off of the road! If car is
old and either (1) meets emission standards appropriate to its year of
manufacture or (2) cannot be cost effectively repaired, let the car
run and die its own death. I just start to get a little nervous when
the govt decides to eliminate old cars from the road. I happen to
like old cars and I happen to think the the goverment often lets a
small, manageable program get turned into an expensive monster (e.g.
Social Security). The pollution problem from Joe Schmoe's Monte Carlo
is going away as Joe Schmoe can now find an old "clunker" CVCC or
Tempo with a catalytic converter. Keep the govt focused on reducing
the deficit and stuff like that.
BTW, no day is better than a clear blue 70 degree day in which (1) you
ride your motorcycle (2) you get an hour or flight time logged for
your license (3) you work on your lbc and (4) you get a post card from
a potential significant other.
Tim "Best believe it was a good day" Radsick
(my opinions are not those of my employer -- neither are they my
opinion if I happen to be in uniform!)
|